Allowed

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Secretariats Administration, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024/522/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed a writ petition challenging an order that failed to recognize the petitioner's regularization services from 2001. The court held that the petitioner, appointed in 1998 and confirmed in 2001, was entitled to regularization backdated to December 2001 under prior judgments and applicable rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.08.2018 set aside; respondent directed to treat petitioner's regularization w.e.f. 28.12.2001 and grant all due service benefits.

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75462

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 522 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Secretariats Administration, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Trivedi,Ravi Pandey,Sandeep Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Neeraj Trivedi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had joined on the post of Chair Reckoner on 19.02.1998 in Rajya Sampati Vibhag on ad hoc basis by means of appointment order dated 12.02.1998 in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/- under the quota of physically challenged persons as the petitioner is blind.

¶9

After working for nearly 3 years, the services of the petitioner was considered for confirmation and by means of order dated 28.12.2001 the services of the petitioner along with other ad hoc employees were confirmed. the petitioner continued as such till date. Surprisingly, an order dated 19.10.2010 was passed cancelling his order of confirmation dated 28.12.2001 on the ground that at the time of his confirmation the services of the petitioner had not been regularized and accordingly respondents passed another order on the very next day i.e. on 20.10.2010 regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from the same date.

¶10

The petitioner being aggrieved by the fresh exercise conducted by the respondents leading to passing of the orders dated 19.10.2010 and 20.10.2010, he approached this Court by filling a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 28718 (SS) of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:-

¶11

"Heard.

¶12

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records it transpires that while regularizing the services of the petitioners who are physically disabled persons being blind,

¶13

due to inadvertence instead of mentioning 'regularization' the word 'confirmation' was mentioned in the order dated 28.12.2001, therefore, it is this error which was rectified by the order dated 19.10.2010 and accordingly another order was passed on 20.10.2010 by which they were treated as 'confirmed' with effect from 20.10.2010 after treating them as 'regularized' with effect from 28.12.2001. On a bare perusal of the two orders it is evident that the petitioners were to be treated as 'regularized' by the order dated 28.12.2001, but due to error they were mentioned as having been 'confirmed', which has been rectified as aforesaid, therefore, there is no error in the impugned order.

¶14

As regards the contention of the petitioners that they have not been granted financial upgradations under the Assured Progression Scheme, they may represent to the concerned authority who shall consider the matter as per the policy applicable and take appropriate decision in this regard within 2 months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. The petition is disposed off in the above terms."

¶15

A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would indicate that the Court after perusing both the orders namely, 19.10.2010 and 20.10.2010 has interpreted the said orders in the manner that the services of the petitioner were to be treated as regularised by means of order dated 28.10.2001 but due to error they were mentioned as being confirmed which has been rectified by the order of this Court and after recording the said observations, the writ petition was disposed off.

¶16

Accordingly, there is no doubt that after reading both the orders, this Court is of the considered view that the services of the petitioner were in fact regularised from 28.12.2001 and confirmed w.e.f. 20.10.2010. In pursuance of judgment of this Court dated 28.10.2017, the respondents proceeded to pass another order dated 31.08.2018 wherein contrary to the observations of this Court treating the petitioner to have been regularized w.e.f. 20.10.2010. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the validity of the order dated 31.08.2018.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that even otherwise considering the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regularization on Ad hoc Appointments (on post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. Section 4 provides :

¶18

" Section 4: Regularization on Ad hoc Appointments -(1) Any person who :-(i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or

¶19

before 30.06.1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (on post outside the purview of Public Service commission)( IIIrd Amendment) Rule, 2001"

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioner having been appointed prior to the cut off date i.e. 30.06.1998 and was fully eligible to be considered for regularization on the date i.e. 28.12.2001. Accordingly, considering the judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2017 along with Rules of 1979, this Court finds that the respondents have incorrectly interpreted the judgment and applied the Rules of 1979 in the case of the petitioner.

¶21

There is no reason as to why the services of the petitioner should not be treated to have been regularized w.e.f 28.12.2001 as per the judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2017. This Court has further been informed that no special appeal has been filed by the State against the order dated 28.11.2017 which became final. In 2001 when the order of confirmation was passed the entire service record of the petitioner must have been examined by the competent authority, and order was passed when he was proved to have fulfilled all criteria. He continued as a confirmed employee till the said order was cancelled on 19.10.2010. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has put all the above orders in correct perspective and held that service of the petitioner stood regularized w.e.f. 2001, and therefore this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner would be entitled for all service benefits treating his regularization w.e.f. 2001.

¶22

In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 31.08.2018 is set aside with regard to the petitioner and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner's services having been regularised on. 28.12.2001 and accordingly they are directed to grant all service benefits to which he is entitled on the said date.

¶23

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Ravi/

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Secretariats Administration, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Secretariats Administration, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Education and Skill Development Lko. and Another

Hanuman Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Education and Skill Development Lko and Another

Uma Raman Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Education and Skill Development and Another

Neel Kamal Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4OTHERS

Bablu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Kumkum Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development U.P. Lko. and 3 Others